Jerykk wrote on Mar 13, 2010, 21:36:
I think a lot of you guys are missing nin's point. He's not saying that Valve is responsible for Ubisoft's practices. He's saying that Valve (specifically Gabe) is being hypocritical because they criticize DRM on one hand while supporting the companies that use it.
nin wrote on Mar 13, 2010, 16:10:
I certainly will, if his lack of action on a system he's apart of allows other publishers to harm a market that he himself would be wise to support.
By allowing that shit on Steam, he's part of the problem.
nin wrote on Mar 13, 2010, 15:48:
If Gabe was serious, he'd tell UBI to take a hike. Steam refusing to do business with them on principle would gather a lot of attention.
Of course, he won't. He'll continue to use one hand to point and make people cheer for him, while keeping the other under the table to collect money from companies that sell their games on steam with additional, unwanted DRM.
Creston wrote on Mar 13, 2010, 14:48:
And plenty of customers are annoyed when a new game lasts five hours. So why is YOUR customer right vs my customer?
I'll agree that games that just make you travel through the same halls (ie, Halo) over and over again are just retarded. But there's nothing wrong with a game that lasts 20 hours and is 20 hours of great content.
Yet there seems to be a prevalence of people who complain that if a game is longer than ten hours "They will never finish it."
I'm not sure what else to call that apart from "no attention span."
StingingVelvet wrote on Mar 13, 2010, 12:05:
He didn't really miss the point, and you just repeated what he had a problem with:
"as a result, would prefer something shorter not longer"
Even if Mass Effect 2 takes you a year to complete that just means you got more awesome content that lasted you a long time. The only reason to want games to be shorter is if you don't really enjoy them enough to want to play them that long.
Creston wrote on Mar 12, 2010, 23:59:
Yeah, oh my God, imagine that! You'd have to play a game for a whole MONTH! What's the world coming to? Much better to just buy a new game every week and play that five hours, right?
This logic never ceases to amaze me. How something can be "too long" to be enjoyed.
Creston wrote on Mar 12, 2010, 22:05:
Because it's too complicated and lasts too long for the people that play games nowadays.
Yifes wrote on Feb 28, 2010, 14:54:
Doesn't the term RPG originate from PnP? If so, then it's reasonable to apply the features of PnP and Western RPGs to the definition of a RPG.
It always seemed to me that JRPGs are misnomer, and since then, the term RPG has only been misused more and more, with ever broadening definitions, so that it has lost most of its original meaning.
This is still ridiculously broad, with criteria open to wildly different interpretations. There are RPGs without adventure style stories (like some tactical RPGs which are just a series of missions), and there are multiplayer shooters with quest driven gameplay (ie. take this objective, get experience, level up). It seems like all you're doing is drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.
Parallax Abstraction wrote on Feb 28, 2010, 02:25:
I had a pretty spirited debate with a former industry person about this issue on Twitter tonight. He claims to know several major people at Blizzard and that they have told him StarCraft 2, Diablo 3 and any title that uses Battle.net 2.0 will make use of very similar DRM that will require you to be online all the time, even to play the single player portions of their games. He obviously wouldn't say who he knows so this isn't confirmed or anything but if that's true, expect this issue to become a way bigger stink than it even is now.
Jerykk wrote on Feb 28, 2010, 03:44:
As such, I think it's reasonable to use those traits to define the genre.
If a game doesn't give you any meaningful choices, it can't be a role-playing game.
The whole point of genres is to make it easier to classify games. If you use such broad definitions, there's no point in having genres at all. If an RPG is defined as any game that has leveling, that means CoD, BF, God of War and a host of other games are RPGs.
Jerykk wrote on Feb 28, 2010, 00:27:
Define "adventure game." To me, an adventure game is a completely linear, story-driven game that revolves around puzzle-solving and NPC conversation. While RPGs do have NPC conversations, they typically do not revolve around puzzle-solving, nor are they completely linear.
RPGs need to be open-ended because it is the genre that is defined by having the most choice.
An RPG should let you solve each situation in a manner of ways (though these typically boil down to violence, stealth or persuasion). It should also let you make high-level choices (otherwise known as moral choices) that have a greater impact on the story and the game world.